sopra_lab_saicfandomcom-20200213-history
Questions of authenticity
How do we define 'authenticity' in Social Practice? * A social practice project in which the creators sincerely and genuinely attempt to engage the interests of their collaborators such that these interests are clearly reflected in the project that they create. * A social practice project that accurately captures, engages and reflects important social issues of our time in a specific locality. In a sense, based on Oxford Dictionary's definition, can we define authenticity in social practice as "relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of '''human life?" It's also so interesting to note that the origins of the word "authentic" in Greek meant "principal" and "genuine." Is that something we should take into account in examining authenticity in Proximity of Consciousness? ''Do we question how "genuine" it is? And naturally, we seem to do so. These words seem to come up more often in conversations around social practice than other fields, and why is this? Although we have the dictionary definition, do these words really provide a common ground for us to discuss social practice? To better evaluate ''Proximity of Consciousness, we must first get our terms straight. We also all have a sense of something that is genuine, responsible and authentic, but these might also be words we use as placeholders for some other values. Moreover, both the words "genuine" and "authenticity" contain within their definitions the idea of corresponding to a original, or historical truth. What is this in relation to social practice? As it is presumably a relatively new field within art, can we even talk about some original? The following pdf deals with food in particular but still presents valid ideas View- Social Construction of Authencity of Art.pdf '''Authenticity in ''Proximity of Consciousness'' Whose role is key in the show? If a physical work of art in the show is fabricated entirely by assistants, but credited to the artist, is it still authentic? Does authorship matter in social practice? Or is the interconnectedness of social movements within the microcosm of a social practice exhibition more important? This is an interesting question because participation in experiences with Rirkrit Tiravanija's untitled group meal piece was to be experienced by invitation only. His three-day engagement included students from Harold Washington College, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago and The Chicago Consortium for Art in Society ("a select group of 35 exceptional undergraduate and graduate students from the city"). However, over the course of these events, it became more apparent that there was a presiding tension between public and private access. In the process, one can't help but notice the magnitude of staff needed to execute the true brevity of the experience. It is equally important to raise questions of permission, the handling of food and the negotiations that needed to be considered with regard to sanitation. An equally important question is whether or not Rirkrit, Jim Duignan and Daniel Peterman were compensated for their participation, or if it was purely voluntary? Furthermore, is the collaborative work achieved by them and their participants available for purchase, and how does this complicate issues of authenticity and authorship if the audience or collaborating artists are not financially compensated? As in art Basel 42 a collector could purchase the concept of Rirkrit for a roughly priced $300,000. 100 Tonson Gallery (Bangkok/ Tahailand) director Aey Phanachet indicated on an interview with Vernissage TV that an art collector could purchase and introduce the same concept that was being played out in Basel Switzerland in 2011. She described the work as something that was participatory and included people willing to volunteer their time to contribute to the wall sketching. In addition to that Thai food was also prepared on site and visitors to the space could partake in the eating opportunity. This experiential opportunity led me to ponder at what cost does an artist like Rirkrit increase or provide a sliding scale fee in exchange for participation? On a larger scale, these questions of authenticity also become questions of documentation and representation. Can you present something as impactful, sincere and engaging without providing evidence of these very things occurring? Or is it unnecessary to have to prove the authenticity of your work and intent? This is also a question of exhibition tactics. How should the community with which the piece works be represented? Do they need to be physically and directly represented or does the installation already do that symbolically? Within Proximity of Consciousness several different ways of attempting to exhibit social practice are experimented with, to varying degrees of success. Laurie Jo Reynolds' Tamms Year Ten Family Room ''is an example of a piece that seems to accurately and genuinely represent its participants, mostly because it features personal touches like photographs and pieces of furniture, etc., actually used by the community. In many ways these touches act as a "certificate of authenticity", so to speak, and connect the viewer to the piece. Dan Peterman's ''Morgan Shoal: Lake Bottom Land Use ''also utilizes direct methods of exhibiting authenticity, through photography and documentary work, as does Michael Rakowicz's Every Weapon Is A Tool If you Hold It Right, once again through photography and gathered evidence. If these pieces are the most literally and clearly represented, it is interesting to look to more minimal installations to see how accuracy translates. For instance, Iñigo Manglano-Ovalle's ''Seven Thousand Cords (After Beuys) offers only a minimalist sculpture as evidence of the symbolic and literal performance aspects of cutting down trees. This piece creates interesting questions of interpretation of authenticity. Can the audience still connect with such ambiguous representation of the project? Or do they connect more without the meaning being so directly fed to them? Is the representation even important, or is it enough to assume that the creator and project are authentic? While questioning the genuine intent of the artists and exhibits within the show, it is important to see how the projects themselves responded to these possible issues of authenticity. Social Practice is constantly asking for proof of impact, intent, community involvement, and more, as evidence of authenticity in a piece. Therefore it is not unrelated to also bring up questions of documentation representation, and more, while evaluation the success of the exhibition. On a separate note the photographic work in the Morgan Puett installation are for SALE.